Category talk:Misc. Items

• Plenty of these exist, have a use, and fit into other categories; we need a clearer definition of what this is…--Dehstil (t|c) 14:34, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Items in this category are items which have no specified type. Ex: "usable items", "food". "combat item" etc. etc etc. All I have to say is that I didn't write the category's description ;-) --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 18:18, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
  • In that case, there's a bunch more that need to be categorized.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:05, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
  • The issue of the treatment of items in the Misc Items category is something that I raised some months ago in an extensive post on the Discussion page. As I pointed out, the philosophy of the day was: "Just so long as an item has at least one category, we're happy. If if doesn't fit anywhere else, we throw it into Category:Misc. Items and call it a day." Since that time, Template:Item was implemented, which implementation added the Misc Items category to a number of items that previously did not have the Misc Items categorization. Specifically, Template:Item caused items that lacked a specific type to be included in the Misc Items category, irrespective of whether or not they already existed in another category. (For example, see the before and after versions of the baconstone page.) I'm not sure if this behavior should be viewed as a bug or a feature, but it does not appear that this change was either documented or discussed or approved. Regardless, Misc Items continues to be, along with "Category:Pixellated Items", "Category:Toys", "Category:Jewelrymaking Components", and "Category:Quest Items", examples of what I call "sloppy" categories. In the same Discussion page post mentioned above, I laid out a preliminary framework for discussing these issues and resolving them. Sadly, the topic was archived without further comment, although it was recently but inconclusively touched on in a discussion in Proposed Standards. Perhaps this time we can actually make some progress on the issue. --Gymnosophist 22:33, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

• Also, I just noticed that the items categorized by Template:Item are not alpha sorting properly - see page 2 of the category to see what I mean. --Gymnosophist 22:55, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
• My bad on not being clearer. Based on the discussion above I temporarily edited the item template to add all non-typed items to the category under the letter " " (space) so we could easily categorize all said items as cleanup work. All misc. items that already have a category declaration at the bottom of their page alpha-sort correctly. As a result of my change, we now see Misc. Items would be a big category indeed based on JRSiebz's definition. I'm not sure if that's what we want or if we simply want leftover uncategorized items here. Perhaps we could exclude cooking items and such? or is this good? ?!?--Dehstil (t|c) 16:01, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

• Ok, I shrunk the category down by excluding some types; how about this?
  Should we exclude anything else, like combines or was JRSiebz or somebody meaning to dissolve that category anyways?--Dehstil (t|c) 17:26, 8 August 2006 (CDT) + 18:12, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
  • I'm not not so much concerned with the size of the Misc. Items category as I am with the unstructured and haphazard approach to categories in general. Plus, we still have the alpha sort problem. Perhaps we should just archive this discussion and "solve" the problem that way.  :) --Gymnosophist 18:20, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
  • There, I went ahead and did it myself. *Whew, editing sprees are long* Anyways, if anyone has an problems with the definition, feel free to change it.--Dehstil (t|c) 15:14, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Actually, while I'm relatively content with the current state of Misc Items, people should not in fact feel free to change category definitions on an ad hoc basis. But good job on the alpha sorting! --Gymnosophist 21:40, 9 August 2006 (CDT)